Not long ago I took in a Canon FD 400mm f/2.8L as a partial trade for a lens I was selling. After one attempt to take out the lens, I found it to be more of a burden than anything and ended up not even using it and posted it for sale here. Some test shots were requested, so I went out in my back yard this evening and the test shots are making me re-think selling the lens.

My question is, is the Olympus in-body IS good enough to get clean shots with a 400mm lens on a monopod shooting 1/100 or less? I'm more than willing to invest in the OM-D E-M5 if the in-body IS can handle the slow shutter speeds at that focal length.

400mm. on a MFT sensor is a very long tele. 1/100" or less ? -Olympus in-body IS is quite good but maybe you're asking too much. Also, using a FF lens on a MFT body it's always a waste of potential.
In your case, I'd wait a few months and buy the FF NEX ( only half chesting ..)

AvianScott wrote:
Not long ago I took in a Canon FD 400mm f/2.8L as a partial trade for a lens I was selling. After one attempt to take out the lens, I found it to be more of a burden than anything and ended up not even using it and posted it for sale here. Some test shots were requested, so I went out in my back yard this evening and the test shots are making me re-think selling the lens.

My question is, is the Olympus in-body IS good enough to get clean shots with a 400mm lens on a monopod shooting 1/100 or less? I'm more than willing to invest in the OM-D E-M5 if the in-body IS can handle the slow shutter speeds at that focal length....Show more →

Scott I would love to have that lens. the answer to your question is yes. The 400mm on the OM-D is superb when the IBIS is engaged. I use it a lot off tripod and hand held. Mostly hand held it is with my elbow resting, but have and do have great results , with very few misses in terms of blurred images due to the focal length. I try to keep the shutter speed up and above 1/1000 hand held and I am by and far not the most steady holder.
I use the 400mm f5.6 L and for those times when I want bird or surf or distant shots is is superb. Would love to come by a 400mm FD f2.8. Keep at least for a while and give it a chance.

Hand Held. I would add the EF400mm f5,6 is a light lens, not sure how heavy the FD f2.8 version is?

I used the FD 400mm f/2.8 L for about a year and frankly I was Not Impressed. The color quality was poor and there wasn't adequate detail to speak of until I stopped down to f/5.6. The DOF at f/2.8 likewise is very scanty (i.e., which part of the eyelash do you want to be in focus) and the huge front element freaked birds out at close range. It seemed like an extraordinary burden to carry when the usefulness of the widest two stops was very limited and I had to use extenders essentially all the time to get an adequately-sized image.

juju1958 wrote:
Hand Held. I would add the EF400mm f5,6 is a light lens, not sure how heavy the FD f2.8 version is?

Any 400mm f/2/8 will be much much heavier than a 400mm f/5.6. Since the front element is twice the diameter as a rough estimate the 2.8 will weigh 3.14x as much as an f/5.6 lens.

telyt wrote:
I used the FD 400mm f/2.8 L for about a year and frankly I was Not Impressed. The color quality was poor and there wasn't adequate detail to speak of until I stopped down to f/5.6. The DOF at f/2.8 likewise is very scanty (i.e., which part of the eyelash do you want to be in focus)...

You're right about f/2.8, DOF is razor thin and I needed to use live view at 5x just to make sure I had good focus. I found the lens is incredible at f/4 (seems to be the sweet spot) and doesn't get any better at f/5.6. I was quite happy with the colors and contrast.

Had a 400mm 2.8 Nikkor AiS a while back. I was an incredible lens but it weighed 13lbs! Still miss it some times but I think a 500/4 would be much more practical (for FF and APS-C), and lighter to boot! For MFT how about trying the 300/2.8 L? My understanding is that was always one of Canon's best, NOT the 400/2.8. Would save you a TON of weight too.